Featured Articles

In Defense of the War on Drugs

The policy formerly known as the War on Drugs has been widely criticized in recent years. Some of these criticisms are well-founded. However, I have been disappointed to see anti-Drug War rhetoric focus more on race and victimology as it has recently. The currently popular race angle is one of the weakest arguments against drug prohibition and is only supported by societal taboos against more honest examination of the issue. What follows is based on my own experience in this area.

I first became interested in the subject in high school, when I first heard of marijuana and started reading about the marijuana laws online. Knowing very little about race or crime at the time, I was outraged by what I found, which seemed to be corruption, “racism” and fanaticism far beyond the norms of politics. I felt like a detective and found it fascinating to learn how I had been deceived. I was also personally insulted by the knowledge that there were laws telling me what I could not put into my own body. I wrote several papers for school and many articles for various websites, and also did various other low-level activist work.

During all this time I had very little contact with the opposition. I never paid much attention to the views of law enforcement on the issue, with the exception of those in Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a pro-legalization group full of mostly former law enforcement officials. I knew that top anti-drug officials such as Barry McCaffrey had been known for making outrageous claims, and that official anti-drug propaganda was laughable. Their side’s distortion of the numbers was often noted and was even the subject of an entire book entitled Lies, Damn Lies, and Drug War Statistics. However, I read very little writing from the prohibitionist side. “The War on Drugs has never been about drugs,” says an anti-prohibitionist documentary released in 2012, and I believe this is true but not quite in the sense the director intended.

Growing up, I had absorbed the usual liberal line on race. All conflict between Whites and others was the fault of Whites. “Racists” were evil people who we should be ashamed to even share a national history with; references to them normally included an expression of something like rage or disgust. In our society we can say things about “bigots” that could probably get us prosecuted if we said them about people who had actually wronged us personally, and I accepted this as normal.

In high school I met a White teacher from South Africa. She felt that the African National Congress’s terrorist attacks were justified simply because the victims were “racist,” and appeared to have no shame about saying so. This was at a nominally Christian school, but this was probably the most un-Christian thing I heard anyone say while I was there.

I was never given any reason at all to believe that Whites and other races were fundamentally equal or similar. It was simply assumed that they were somehow the same, and that equal life outcomes between Blacks and Whites would thus be fair. This was considered so obvious that it was practically never stated explicitly, let alone argued for rationally. For a very long time, I did not question this, and strained my mind to ignore the evidence of my own senses concerning the dramatic differences in intelligence between Blacks and Whites.

Jared Taylor’s comment that “it is pleasant to feel oneself superior to mean-spirited conservatives” applies here. I never met anyone who openly disagreed with the standard view, and this meant that I could have a sort of pleasure in being a righteous opponent of evil without the risk of ever facing that evil in reality.

It is often alleged, not only by drug policy reform organizations but others such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch, that the War on Drugs is “racist.” The title of a 2012 book by the Black law professor and attorney Michelle Alexander was The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. This complaint is partly based on explicitly racial propaganda which served to support the drug prohibition laws of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and partly on the current “disparate impact” of the drug laws on Blacks and Hispanics. Blacks have long been far more likely than Whites to be arrested or incarcerated on drug charges, with Blacks about four times as likely as Whites to be arrested on marijuana charges according to 2010 data. It was implied, and sometimes stated more explicitly, that the behaviors police should be focusing on in this context were not significantly different between the races.

The issue of predatory crime and criminals was rarely mentioned in the anti-prohibitionist literature except to suggest that it was exacerbated by prohibition. At most there was a reference to “fears of crime,” including early 1900s propaganda themes such as “Negro cocaine fiends,” creatures which allegedly could not be stopped with the usual caliber of bullet. Similar propaganda was mentioned in connection with opium smoking by Chinese and marijuana use by Mexican immigrants, but the question of how or if these people’s behavior actually differed from that of native Whites outside of drug use was not seriously raised. I read of H.R. Haldeman’s infamous quote that in President Nixon’s opinion, “the whole problem is really the Blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this while not appearing to,” and I had the response I had been taught to have. I saw all of this as “racist” and proof of the absurdity of the whole anti-drug project.

It did not occur to me to seriously consider the character of many people involved on what Bill Hicks would call the winning side of the War on Drugs. The natural thing was to assume that the claims about the connection between drugs and antisocial behavior were at best rumors developed by the fevered imaginations of racist anti-drug fanatics. I had certainly learned of the corruption of many who worked on the prohibitionist side, and of infamous examples of brutality such as the drug treatment program Straight Inc. I had also read about the shady legal (arguably illegal) maneuvers which were the foundation of drug prohibition. If I ever thought about the offenders, though, it was only to feel outraged by their treatment. I was even proud to think that I did not care about whose interests I was defending or what type of people they were.

In one book—I cannot recall the name of it— there was a quote from a gang member on why he and his associates engaged in violence. The author was trying to argue that there was more behind the violence than the pressures of prohibition. Not only did I not give it much credence at the time, but I felt racist just to be reading it, and tried to put it out of my mind. The offender’s description was something like “you know, we be just funnin’, gunnin’ and funnin’.” In other words they shot people for the lulz. This was at odds with one anti-prohibitionist explanation for much of the violence of the drug market, namely the lack of access to courts to settle their differences peacefully. It did not occur to me that these were not the type of people to prefer the briefcase to the handgun method of dispute resolution.

I was initially puzzled when I read about Black leaders in Congress going along with the hysteria around crack cocaine in the 1980s. Most of the Congressional Black Caucus supported the federal Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, including the infamous 100-1 disparity in mandatory minimum sentences between crack and powder cocaine. Similar support for other anti-drug policies has come from the CBC and many other Blacks over the course of the Drug War, and this has included essentially blaming crack for crime. I knew that the usually reported effects of cocaine—crack or powder—were not as dramatic as popularly claimed, and that no drug could simply make respectable people into criminals. Again, I did not read between the lines.

I had more hints of what was really going on, which I similarly did not think much of. One article in the compilation After Prohibition: An Adult Approach to Drug Policies in the 21st Century, edited by Timothy Lynch, was written by a former law enforcement officer. Although a supporter of drug policy reform himself, the author explained that the charge that they were targeting and incarcerating people solely for drug possession was laughed at by police. They only targeted suspected dealers for arrest, but found that it was difficult to prove a distribution charge in court, while possession was easy. This accounted for the figures1 which some on our side took to mean that the police were mainly wasting their time on harmless users. This should have been a hint to me that offenders have likely committed many offenses for which they were not convicted or even charged, so the frequent references to “nonviolent drug offenders” were not presenting the full picture.

I do not doubt that the War on Drugs has punished some people who were no threat to society. I assume Norm Stamper is telling the truth when he discusses his experience as a DEA informant, stating that those he informed on were normal college students rather than dangerous criminals. But not everyone can be targeting peaceful college kids, particularly in areas where college education is practically unheard of.

I cannot point to a single “eureka” moment in which I changed my views on crime or race. I was however particularly moved by Theodore Dalrymple’s Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass, a collection of essays on the British underclass. Dalrymple, a former prison doctor, argued against drug legalization in a debate in 2012. The people in the neighborhoods Dalrymple discusses are White, but no less dysfunctional for it, similar to what is on display on The Jeremy Kyle Show. Long-term gainful employment is rare, domestic violence is the norm, and local police have essentially given up prosecuting many serious offenses.

I understood while reading this that any sane person living in or around this sort of hell would rightly fear for their safety or even their lives. I also understood that poverty and general backwardness was not a condition imposed on some by the rest of society, but the product of a self-destructive worldview which could not but guarantee essentially Third-World living conditions. These were people who not only showed very little interest in improving their own situation but violently discouraged the more sensible among them from bettering themselves.

Reading Inside the Criminal Mind by Stanton Samenow, a Virginia psychiatrist who ran an intensive attitude-modification program for inmates, was also important. Samenow described the predominant personality type among criminals, explaining that they love to hear and repeat sociological excuses for their crimes. The mantra of “society is at fault” allows them to deny responsibility for their actions, which frees them from any obligation to change their behavior, let alone the attitudes behind it. The norm for these people is a victim mentality, often coupled with an aversion to work and a grandiose conception of themselves. With this mindset, of course, they feel little obligation to respect the rights of others. By rejecting their excuses and focusing on correcting their distorted worldview, he had some success in changing the behavior of a large minority of participants in his program.

In light of all this, I could not see such people as victims over whose treatment I should feel outraged. On the contrary, I could understand the desperation of police and citizens to do something about this incredible degeneracy.

Rhetorical victory over many prohibitionists such as former DEA head Asa Hutchinson is remarkably easy, as can be seen in various articles, books and televised debates. At first I thought this was simply because our side was overwhelmingly righteous and the other side was a bunch of idiotic bigots. As it turns out, it is essentially a fight against a disarmed opponent.

The character of violent criminals, let alone Black or underclass criminals in particular, is off the table as a topic in public discussion of the drug policies. This is despite it being the most compelling justification for a policy which manages to put away many of these people, restricting their ability to commit further crimes. Explaining that we are dealing with people from a different culture who have no interest in being a productive part of our society would be out of the question. It would violate the orthodox view that all men are created equal, and that society is at fault when they do not turn out that way. The taboo against “hate” is also relevant, as an honest description of these people’s attitudes and behavior would inspire such feelings in many normal people.

Not being able to honestly describe the nature of the people they are targeting leaves the prohibitionist side defenseless in debate. They are required to fall back on exaggerations of the dangers of drugs themselves when the issue is essentially the dangers of criminals, which to a large extent means Blacks. An honest desire to remove violent offenders from the neighborhoods they prey on ends up looking like some capricious crusade to eradicate offensive plant products.

Growing up, I was exposed to a fearful worldview which essentially stated that, especially concerning anything political, it was wiser to suspect someone of lying to you than to believe them. Of course, I never applied this rule consistently, but I did to some degree believe it. It did not occur to me for some time that we live in what has been described as a “trust society,” in stark contrast to much of the world. Despite our declining trust in institutions, people in the West can still count on a high degree of honest behavior in day-to-day life, and without this we would be much more like Somalia.

Without a suspicious attitude towards much of society it is much more difficult to maintain an egalitarian worldview. The idea that the races are equal in criminality or in other critical personality traits implies belief in massive dishonesty in a “racist” direction, both by those who have had the most experience of different races in their own lives and by generations of scientists. I have never had to deal with racial differences in a professional capacity, but neither have I ever found any reason to believe that those that have are lying.

I recall reading the popular article by Thomas Jackson, “What It’s Like to Teach Black Children,” and finding a seemingly endless string of comments from many different people claiming that their own experience had been similar to his, along with various details. One comment accused all of the others of lying, and another even accused the author of never having any experience teaching Blacks. Another commenter sarcastically responded with “yeah, all those people are lying.”

There was no dramatic epiphany, but I remember at this point thinking about the absurdity of my “consider the source” pretensions. Of course, in reading about the issue further, I found the evidence against the orthodox view on race to be just as overwhelming as I had earlier found the arguments against the War on Drugs.

It is true that the effects of illegal drugs themselves are commonly exaggerated. Many anti-drug authorities have made absurd claims about drugs, and about their own effectiveness in combating them. The average drug user is not a violent threat to others, even while under the influence. None of this means, though, that the authorities are imagining the threat of certain people for whom the best the prosecution can get is a drug possession charge.

Many violent criminals use and/or sell drugs. They often belong to a culture which does not accept values which many Whites assume are universal. This is an environment in which cooperation with the police is not the norm. Unlike some offenses, drug possession does not require a victim or other witnesses to assist the police, so cases can be prosecuted regardless. The War on Drugs is not some malicious attempt to punish Blacks out of jealousy for their resemblance to chocolate. Drug prohibition, despite its flaws, is an understandable attempt to put away dangerous people.

  1. See pages 14, 15, 39.

Mediocre Meghan as Microcosm: How Meghan Markle Symbolizes Black Hatred of White Civilization

Leftism is built on lies. I know that. I’ve seen countless examples of it. But even I was surprised by the Guardian’s dishonesty in February 2021. It was reporting on “rising violence against Asian communities in the US” and, of course, it was refusing to admit that Blacks were responsible. Well, I was ready for the usual coy descriptions of how “a man” or “a youth” had committed some act of amoral thuggery. But I wasn’t ready for this:

The Oakland attacks came as many in the Bay Area began changing their social media photos to bring awareness to the seemingly unprovoked killing of an 84-year-old Thai man in San Francisco last month. Video of that attack shows a person running at Vicha Ratanapakdee, a “gentle, nearly blind” grandfather, and shoving him to the ground on his morning walk. Ratanapakdee died of his injuries two days later. (Oakland police make arrest in attack on elderly Asian man as concerns over violence grow, The Guardian, 9th February 2021)

There you have it: according to the Guardian, “a person” was responsible for that brutal crime. The newspaper was averting its eyes from the plain truth revealed in the video: that the “person” in question was a young Black male. Indeed, the word “Black” was not mentioned once in that article, or in two articles reporting how Asian leaders and Democratic politicians have blamed Donald Trump and “systemic racism” for the violence.

Cruel, hate-filled White societies

This is an example of how leftists believe in the “immaculate conception” of Blacks, who therefore exist in perfect sanctity and purity, free from every stain and fault. Any apparent misbehaviour by Blacks is in fact entirely the fault of innately depraved Whites, who have created cruel, hate-filled societies where Blacks and other non-Whites are systematically oppressed, exploited and trodden into the mire. Of course, this leftist fantasy of White oppression and non-White victimhood is contradicted by the way Chinese, Japanese, Indians and many other non-White groups flourish in White societies. But what does reality matter to leftists? They seek power, not truth, and are narcissists, not realists.

Oppressed Black billionaire and millionaire unite against White racism

They also hate White civilization, which will stand as a permanent rebuke to their lies and fantasies unless they manage to destroy it. And all those aspects of leftism were on full display in the interview conducted by the Black billionaire Oprah Winfrey with the Black millionaire Meghan Markle and her stupid White husband Prince Harry. It was utterly predictable that the marriage of Meghan and Harry would cause big problems for the Royal Family. Meghan Markle was a mediocre actress of mediocre intellect with mediocre looks. She snagged a surplus prince and won herself a spectacular wedding, hijacking great White architecture and ritual with Black narcissism, crudity and entitlement. As the London Evening Standard put it: “Black culture was celebrated throughout the ceremony — from spotlighting British cellist prodigy Sheku Kanneh-Mason, Bishop Michael Curry’s sermon and the presence of Black gospel choir The Kingdom Choir.”

Cast-iron proof of racism

But the wedding would have been the high point of Markle’s life if she’d behaved herself from then on. How would she keep winning attention and enjoying drama if she became a loyal member of the Royals and a dutiful granddaughter-in-law to the Queen? She wouldn’t. So she decided to be disloyal and abandon duty instead. And it’s worked very well. She’s back in the headlines around the world playing that most important and attention-grabbing of leftist roles: the Black victim of White racism. And how wonderful it would have been if she could have claimed that British royals or palace officials had donned white hoods and burned a giant cross on her lawn whilst waving nooses and chanting the n-word. Alas, she couldn’t claim that. Even leftist credulity wouldn’t have stretched that far. But the reaction to what she did claim — that an unspecified royal had wondered how dark her unborn child’s skin might be — has been scarcely less hysterical.

Leftists immediately proclaimed that Markle’s vague accusation was cast-iron proof of racism. Royal racism! You could hear the glee in the voices of anti-royal BBC journalists as they covered the story. You could also hear mediocre Black narcissists around the world rushing to their keyboards to type passionate defences of Markle. The competition was fierce, but I think the prize for “Black Narcissist of the Month” has to go to Dr Shola Mos-Shogbamimu (Phd MBA LLM MA LLB IAQ), who managed to get eight instances of the first-person singular into the short opening paragraph of her pro-Markle article in the Guardian:

I stayed up late to watch the Oprah interview. As I watched it, I thought: “Lord, give me strength!” Like me, Meghan is independent, well educated, career-minded. Like me, she is a woman of Black heritage. I felt her pain. It was very difficult to listen to Harry and Meghan’s story and not feel sorry for them, because I believed what they were saying. (Meghan has been mistreated for years — but her interview still shocked me, The Guardian, 8th March 2021)

Proud Black Egomaniac Dr Shola Mos-Shogbamimu

Mos-Shogbamimu went on to explain that “As a Black woman, I am so used to all the nuances of racism that vary from person to person. There is obvious racism, but there is also a more subtle form of racism, which can best be described as a form of white violence.” When racism becomes “more subtle,” it presumably doesn’t involve physical attacks. So how can “more subtle” racism be “best described” as “white violence”? Very easily, to the mediocre intellect of Mos-Shogbamimu. She isn’t interested in reality and she doesn’t use words to reflect reality, but to convey her hostility to Whites and feed her own narcissism. That’s why she announced that “The royal family as an institution has a legacy that is rooted in slavery, colonialism and racism.”

Services to hysteria and community disintegration

Like Oprah Winfrey and Meghan Markle, Mos-Shogbamimu is a mediocre Black facing the grandeur and tradition of a great White institution. Naturally enough, she feels an affront to her narcissism and wants to drag that institution down whilst pretending that the exploitation of Blacks was central to its success. To be clear: I don’t want to defend the British monarchy myself. It has completely failed to champion the White British against the hostile elite and non-White immigration. Instead, it celebrates the dispossession of the White British. The deceitful Mark Steyn was wrong in his analysis of “this year’s Commonwealth Day service”:

Somewhere in the course of the weekend, someone told me that the Queen had moved up this year’s Commonwealth Day service as part of her “damage control” operation [against the Markle interview] (along with reports that the Duchess of Sussex was a total bitch to her staff). So I watched the Westminster Abbey service for the first time in, golly, several decades. This year it was Covid-compliant, so no congregation, just exotic musical combos — African drummers and Maori choirs — punctuated by various Royal duchesses in somewhat earnest conversation with Malawian women’s-groups organizers and Indian literacy-program teachers and a fellow from Bangladesh who started an ambulance service in rural areas.

The finale — the Lord’s Prayer recited a line apiece by Commonwealth citizens from Nigeria, Belize, Singapore, etc – was rather moving in its universalist simplicity. Much of the rest had a reassuringly boring niceness: The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (that’s “Will ’n’ Kate” to Oprah viewers) seemed genuinely fascinated by the Bangladeshi ambulance service; the Countess of Wessex (that’s …well, she’s never gonna rate Oprah, so who cares?) said “Nice to see you again” to an enthusiastic young lady she’d met on a previous trip to Malawi. If the Royal Family is racist, as the despicable Harry and his malignant narcissist of a missus insist, they’ve got a funny way of showing it. (Things to Obsess About Until They Nuke Us, SteynOnline, 8th March 2021)

Steyn is wrong to say the “Commonwealth Day service” was benign. In fact, the Royal Family was virtue-signalling in typical elite fashion and demonstrating that they have no interest in defending ordinary Whites against dispossession. After all, the rich and privileged royals don’t have to live in close contact with non-Whites day after day, enduring crime, overcrowding and competition for jobs, housing and public space. Muslim rape-gangs won’t be calling at Buckingham Palace to select their victims, low-IQ Blacks won’t be swinging machetes or throwing acid at exclusive private schools like Eton, and Pakistani fraudsters won’t be duping the Queen out of her life-savings if she falls victim to dementia.

Meeting of Mediocrities

But despite its current treachery, the Monarchy remains a potent symbol of White Christian Britain and is still hated by those who want to destroy Britain and its traditions. Those who can’t create often wish to forget their inferiority by destroying what others have created. Anti-White Blacks like Shola Mos-Shogbamimu are a prime example of that psychological truth. But to be fair to Ms Mos-Shogbamimu, she hasn’t attacked the British monarchy after accepting one of the most glittering prizes in its gift. The mediocre Black historian David Olusoga has done exactly that. He was awarded an O.B.E., or Order of the British Empire, in the Queen’s 2019 New Year Honours “for services to history and to community integration.”

Meeting of Mediocrities: Barack Obama and David Olusoga

In fact, Olusoga has always served anti-White hysteria, not impartial history, and has worked for community disintegration, not integration. And so, after Meghan Markle attacked the Royal Family, Olusoga joined the hysteria in (where else?) the Guardian and announced that the interview with Oprah Winfrey “is not just a crisis for the royal family — but for Britain itself.” Yes, that’s how serious it is when a mediocre Black actress claims that an unspecified royal had enquired, in unspecified terms and an unspecified context, about the possible future skin-colour of her semi-Black embryo. Should David Olusoga, who is 51 years old and Professor of Public History at the University of Manchester, have accepted Markle’s claims so credulously? By White standards, no, he shouldn’t. But Olusoga applies anti-White standards and so he once again served hysteria rather than history.

No discussion of innate racial differences

And, by White standards, an acclaimed and award-laden historian should not write like a pseudo-intellectual teenager. But Olusoga isn’t held to White standards, which is why he wrote of “the simmering contempt [for Markle] still being incubated and transmitted by the toxic parts of our tabloid press.” He then went on to express his sorrow that Britain was unprepared for “an honest national conversation about race and racism,” “honest self-reflection,” “hard self-reflection” and “a reckoning with the difficult truths of our imperial history.”

As Steve Sailer has often pointed out, when leftists call for “honest conversation,” they mean: “We speak — you obey.” If Britain truly had “an honest national conversation about race and racism,” it would ask whether there are innate racial differences in cognition, personality and criminality. It would also ask whether non-Whites systematically harm and exploit Whites, rather than vice versa, and whether “anti-racism” is a parasistic ideology that seeks to paralyse the resistance of Whites to their own dispossession and destruction. Obviously, Olusoga doesn’t want any of those questions raised. Nor does he want Blacks such as himself to engage in “honest self-reflection” and to ask whether Black problems might be owed to Black shortcomings rather than “white racism.”

Black barbarism trumps White civilization

No, “self-reflection” is for sin-stained Whites, not for saintly Blacks. David Olusoga is a supposed historian who doesn’t believe in objective enquiry or open debate, but in subjective certainty and proclamation ex cathedra. He’s a narcissist, not a realist. That’s why he and other Black mediocrities side with Black barbarism rather than White civilization. In November 2020, Olusoga and other “Black public figures” signed a joint letter opposing the deportation of fifty Jamaican criminals, including “convicted murderers and rapists.” The criminals wouldn’t be safe in Jamaica, Olusoga and company said. I agree: Black-majority Jamaica has astonishingly high rates of murder, rape and police brutality. And by signing that letter, Olusoga proved that he supports Black barbarism over White civilization. He wants Britain to become more like Jamaica and his hugely corrupt paternal homeland of Nigeria.

Blacks for Barbarism! David Olusoga (top centre) and other “Black public figures” support Jamaican murderers and rapists

But Olusoga persists in believing that he is somehow a brave rebel fighting for truth, justice and high culture against cruel White-hegemonic racism. In 2020, his Black privilege earned him another honour when he was asked to deliver the “keynote MacTaggart lecture at the virtual edition of the Edinburgh television festival.” In the lecture, he proclaimed that:

The year of Black Lives Matter and the murder of George Floyd is not the year to speak half-truths to power. … In the spirit of Black Lives Matters, in the spirit of an age in which millions of people have come to recognise that silence on these issues is a form of complicity, I am going to say what I really think about race, racism and our industry. And I’ll discover if, at the end of it, I still have a career. (David Olusoga: his Edinburgh television festival speech in full, The Guardian, 24th August 2020)

That’s how deluded and narcissistic David Olusoga is: he thought (or pretended to think) that condemning British television for racism and demanding more “diversity” might end his career. He thought (or pretended to think) that he might be punished by powerful Whites for claiming victimhood and for revealing that White racism had left him feeling “sidelined, dismissed and desperately unhappy” — “so isolated and so devalued that I twice slipped into clinical depression.”

Oprah and Obama, united in mediocrity

The opposite happened after his lecture, of course: he was extravagantly praised and his Black mediocrity was even more richly rewarded. For example, his fellow mediocre Black, the Guardian journalist Afua Hirsch, extolled his “candour and courage.” And why not? She too has built a highly successful career on accusing Whites of racism and proclaiming her own victimhood. But while Olusoga is half-White and trained as a historian, Hirsch is part-Jewish and trained as a lawyer. And her ancestry and training bring me to other questions that should be raised in any genuinely “honest conversation about race and racism.” How is it that mediocre Blacks like Markle, Olusoga, Hirsch and Mos-Shogbamimu wield such power and influence in modern Western societies? How did a mediocre Black like Oprah Winfrey become a billionaire and a mediocre Black like Barack Obama become President of the United States?

Mediocre but media-mighty: Half-black, half-Jewish Afua Hirsch

In short, how did members of such an under-achieving race become such over-achievers? Well, as you might expect, it wasn’t by their own efforts. Blacks have, in fact, been foot-soldiers in a war on White civilization directed by a race that isn’t intellectually mediocre or handicapped by impulsivity and disregard for the future. As Kevin MacDonald has documented, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in America was  run and funded not by Blacks, but by Jews. In the UK, the anti-racist Runnymede Trust was founded by two Jewish lawyers to attack Whites and promote mass immigration from the Third World. Blacks were foot-soldiers in the war on White civilization; Jews were generals. Blacks and Jews are still playing those roles. You can see Jewish power behind the scenes even in the hysteria about the Markle interview with Oprah Winfrey. The White journalist Piers Morgan bluntly said that “I don’t believe a word [Markle] says” and that he was prepared to lose his job “for expressing an honestly held opinion about Meghan Markle and that diatribe of bilge that she came out with in that interview.”

“Squalid example of blatant antisemitic language”

And he did lose his job as a presenter at the show Good Morning Britain, after severe condemnation by leftists and “41,000 complaints to the [TV] regulator Ofcom.” Unlike David Olusoga, Morgan showed “candour and courage.” But don’t worry that his career is over: he will probably soon be employed by Rupert Murdoch or Murdoch’s former henchman Andrew Neil. You can often survive in the media mainstream if you criticize Blacks. But not if you criticize Jews — or even if you compliment Jews in a way they don’t like, as the philo-Semitic Irish journalist Kevin Myers discovered in 2017. Myers pointed out that the two highest-paid women at the BBC are Jews called Vanessa Feltz and Claudia Winkleman. He then said: “Jews are not generally noted for their insistence on selling their talent for the lowest possible price.” Jews immediately objected and Myers lost his successful career, despite his loud protestations of admiration and respect for Jews. Mark Gardner, the “communications director” of the Jewish Community Security Trust (CST), gloated that “Myers’s squalid example of blatant antisemitic language was swiftly dealt with.”

The message was simple: “Watch yourselves, goyim!” And I think the goy Piers Morgan is well aware of Jewish power and the often-seen Jewish ability to end careers. Look at the strange non-sequitur he used when, a few weeks before the Markle interview, he was defending himself against a critic of his journalism. The critic, Morgan said, “raged against my ‘idiotic rants’ [and] branded me a ‘parasite’ — the word the Nazis infamously used for Jewish people.” That comment about “the Nazis” was completely irrelevant, except as a virtue-signal from Morgan to powerful Jews. “See how pro-Jewish I am?” Morgan was saying. “The merest mention of the word ‘parasite’ makes me think of the nasty Nazis and their vile slurs against the saintly Jewish community.”

The Jewish role remains plain to see

That’s why Morgan still has a place in the mainstream media. He’s pro-Jewish, even if he’s prepared to criticize a self-proclaimed Black victim like Meghan Markle. But he didn’t discuss Black narcissism, mediocrity and hatred of White civilization, which are still taboo subjects in the mainstream. And Morgan will never discuss the Jewish role in agitating Blacks and employing them as foot-soldiers in their war on White civilization. But the Jewish role remains plain to see. Jews don’t merely fund and staff “anti-racist” organizations like the Runnymede Trust, sponsor illiberal laws against “hate speech,” and proclaim repeatedly that “Muslims and Jews are natural allies.” They’re also central to the denial of racial reality: Jewish biologists like Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, Leon Kamin and Steven Rose have propagandized tirelessly for the irrational and biologically illiterate dogma of “There’s Only One Race — the Human Race!”

That lying leftist dogma has done incalculable harm to the West, justifying not only the massive coercive apparatus of “anti-racism” and egalitarianism, but also the flooding of White nations with non-White migrants from the Third World. The Jewish culture of critique proclaims that if non-Whites like Jamaicans and Somalis fail in the West, it’s because of White racism. But if non-Whites like the Chinese and Indians succeed, it’s despite White racism. Oprah Winfrey and Meghan Markle may be mediocre in intellect, but they and countless other non-Whites have proved quite capable of learning and applying the central message of the culture of critique: White racism explains all White success and all non-White failure.

Whites have rights

It’s a simple message for simple minds and it will destroy the West unless it is firmly and irreversibly defeated by the truth. Whites are not the world’s greatest villains, but the world’s greatest creators. And they have a right to live in their own nations free of envious and hate-filled Black mediocrities like Meghan Markle and David Olusoga.

Whites also have a right to live free of the hostile Jewish elite that supplies the culture of critique to envious and hate-filled Blacks. After all, Blacks and Jews all have nations of their own. If they’re sincere about how evil and oppressive Whites are, they should be glad to leave us. If they’re not sincere, they’re obviously seeking to harm us and should leave us just the same.

The Emperor’s New Mask:  Where is the Evidence?

On March 10, Texas effectively eliminated all restrictions related to the Covid pandemic.  The shutdown ended, restaurant capacities were restored to 100%, and perhaps most significantly for everyday life, mask mandates were lifted.  Masks are the most visible, and the most individually obtrusive, aspect of the pandemic.  At present, 34 states have some form of mask mandate; the 16 states without mandates include Texas plus Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Tennessee.  This means that around 100 million Americans are now free to go maskless, whereas over 200 million are still under mandates.

Among all states taking action against the virus, six are generally recognized as having been the harshest:  California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Vermont, and Washington.  Of these, Michigan seems to have suffered the most, economically; 32% of its private sector businesses were closed due to the lockdown mandated by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, the highest in the nation.  This fact alone puts her in strong contention for Worst Governor in America, surpassing even such luminaries as Gavin (“The French Laundry”) Newsom and Andrew (“Strip Poker”) Cuomo.  At least we don’t have to worry about her sexually harassing any female staffers—though we can’t quite say the same for Whitmer’s Jewish-lesbian AG, Dana Nessel.

Along with the Michigan business lockdown, of course, came stringent mask mandates, which were initiated on 13 July 2020 and are still firmly in place.  The mask mandates in themselves warrant some investigation.

Recently, a correspondent of mine in Michigan contacted his local state representative, a Democrat, regarding the status of lifting the mask mandate.  He received a terribly snarky reply from a staffer, along the lines of, “the Representative has no interest in rescinding mask mandates anytime soon.”  Furthermore, added the staffer, “it is extremely unlikely that you will see any push to repeal mask mandates (by Republicans or Democrats) until the majority of our people are vaccinated and the virus is under control”—meaning, of course, say goodbye to breathing freely again in Michigan anytime soon.

To his credit, though, the staffer included a link to an actual scientific study, along with the claim that “masks have been scientifically proven to reduce the transmission of COVID and other airborne illnesses.”  The report, “An evidence review of face masks against COVID-19,” makes for an excellent case study in the whole mask debate.  As the one and only piece of evidence offered, it surely must be the most important.  Surely Democrats in Michigan and around the nation have been instructed to point to this very study in defense of masks.  It is therefore worthy of some critical examination.

A Few Preliminaries

Before looking at the study itself, let me make one initial point:  It is largely irrelevant to claim that “masks have been proven to reduce transmission”—this much is obvious.  Any mask, of almost any type, will, to some degree, “reduce transmission” of virus-laden droplets or aerosols.  The relevant questions are: To what extent does the reduction in transmission translate into reduced human suffering? (sickness and death) and, Does this reduction offset the disadvantages and costs of mandating masks?  If we don’t ask the right questions up front, we won’t reach any useful conclusions.  But it is a nifty trick, to pose a false or trivial question and then easily “prove” it to be correct—something like a Straw Man fallacy in reverse.  Nice try.

Let’s turn, then, to this most-important of mask studies.  Timing is critical in a fast-evolving global pandemic, so let’s consider that aspect first.  We see that the report was published in the prestigious PNAS on 11 January 2021—hence, nominally a very recent study.  However, we note also that the paper was submitted way back on 13 July 2020.  There is of course always some lag time, but amidst a global crisis, six months seems unduly excessive.  (Also strange is the fact that the paper was accepted for publication back on 5 December; there is no obvious reason to wait for almost two months to publish, on-line, a study of such urgency.)  Given a July 2020 submission date, all developments of the past eight months are of necessity unexamined.  This is significant; as we will see, there is one recent study that certainly needs to be included in any mask discussion.

Next there is the question of authorship.  The study itself has fully 19 named authors—more names make it more impressive, of course.  The lead author (always the main person of the group) is one Jeremy Howard.  If we look for Howard’s affiliations, we find two:  “fast.ai, San Francisco,” and “The Data Institute, University of San Francisco.”  Take the latter first.  USF is a small, private university in central San Francisco, which indeed has a Data Institute, dedicated to “creating a new partnership between industry and academia.”  And this is perfect for Mr. (not Dr.) Howard, because “industry” is what he does best.  His other affiliation, fast.ai, is a small high-tech startup run only by himself and a partner, Rachel Thomas.  A review of his bio (“About the team”) and his Wikipedia entry demonstrate clearly that Howard (“entrepreneur”) is in no sense a scientist or researcher; his forte is business and marketing, nothing more.  Indeed, Wikipedia only indicates that he “studied philosophy” at his Australian university, apparently not even graduating with a bachelor’s degree.  And this man is the lead author in a vital national, even international, study.  Both PNAS and USF seem to have very low standards these days for their “scientific” researchers.

The Study that Wasn’t

Turning to the study itself, we read in the Abstract that “the preponderance of evidence indicates that mask-wearing reduces transmissibility per contact”—but again, as I said, this much is obvious.  From this fact, they recommend “the adoption of public cloth mask wearing…in conjunction with existing hygiene strategies.”  The Abstract closes with this:  “We recommend that public officials and government strongly encourage the use of widespread face masks in public, including the use of appropriate regulation”—implying, but not explicitly calling for, mask mandates.

The study can be functionally divided into two parts.  The first part covers some background and history, and then addresses the important issue of “direct evidence” for mask efficacy.  Part two is an elaboration of six questions relating to mask use and impact.  Let’s examine each part separately.

In part one, the authors rightly note that the best and only truly compelling scientific evidence comes from randomized controlled trials, or RCTs (or equivalently, a metanalysis of several RCTs).  In an RCT, one group of random subjects is assigned to the intervention method (here, wearing a mask), and another random group is assigned as the control (here, not wearing a mask).  The two groups are studied over time, and the effects are then compared.  Here, we would like to know, for example, the Covid infection rates for mask-wearers versus non-mask-wearers.  This would tell us if masks provide any protection to the user, and if so, how much.  (In the best of all worlds, RCTs would be “double-blind,” meaning that neither researcher nor subject would be aware of who was in the test group and who was in the control.  This works well for pills, because some subjects can be given a placebo.  But with face masks, it is obviously impossible to run a blind test.)

Unfortunately for us all, the researchers inform us that “for population health measures, we should not generally expect to be able to find controlled trials [RCTs], due to logistical and ethical reasons.”  Therefore, they add, “we should instead seek a wider evidence base.”  “There is no RCT for the impact of masks on community transmission of any respiratory infection in a pandemic.”  In other words, the gold standard for scientifically valid research—an RCT—is not possible for Covid, they say.  Therefore, we are stuck with a poor second-best, namely, observational studies—studies, which are, by nature, anecdotal, suffer from recall bias, and can point only to correlation, not causation.

But more to the point, the authors are simply wrong:  we in fact can have RCTs for this pandemic, and researchers in Denmark recently reported on just such a study—with very interesting results.  But I defer that discussion for the moment.

Howard and colleagues then note that, even with the second-best observational studies, we have only one: “Only one observational study has directly analyzed the impact of mask use in the community on COVID transmission.”  This study, of Beijing households, found masks to be effective, but only if all members wore them, and only if use was implemented before anyone displayed any symptoms.  This study thus has no relevance to broader public use of masks.  A few other small studies have been done on SARS and influenza, but the applicability of these to Covid is unknown, and in any case, “none of the studies looked specifically at cloth masks,” which is the explicit recommendation of Howard and colleagues.

They continue:  A 2011 study of 67 studies, both RCT and observational, on ordinary, non-pandemic occurrences of the flu and other respiratory diseases, showed that “there was insufficient evidence to provide recommendation on the use of facial barriers without other measures.”  Hence, masks alone seemed to offer no protection.  If they only work in conjunction with other measures, then it is more likely that the other measures were providing the bulk of the protection.

Most importantly, the authors then briefly mention an April 2020 study (Brainard et al) on masks and respiratory viruses that examined both RCTs and observational cases (pre-pandemic).  Using only the stronger RCT data, Brainard and colleagues concluded that “there was only weak evidence for a small effect.”  This, in fact, is what anti-maskers have been saying for nearly a year—of the actual, reliable evidence to date, we have, at best, “weak evidence of a small effect.”  This is the actual science to date.  And on this basis, we inflict mandatory masks on hundreds of millions of people, including millions of children.

Summing up part one, Howard and friends do their best to make lemonade out of lemons: “Overall, direct evidence of the efficacy of mask use is supportive, but inconclusive.  Since there are no RCTs [on Covid], only one observational trial [Beijing households], and unclear evidence from other respiratory illnesses, we will need to look at a wider body of evidence.”  In other words, since real, solid evidence is lacking, we’ll have to hunt around for indirect, anecdotal, and other dubious means of coming to the conclusion that we seek.

Six Questions

Part two opens with an ethical question:  Can we conduct true Covid RCTs, which necessarily require that we expose unmasked people to potential infection?  Howard badly wants to say ‘no.’  But of course, medical scientists do this all the time; they always strive to have a test group and a control group, the latter of which is unprotected, given a placebo, or otherwise placed at risk.  This is the only scientific way to establish efficacy of medical treatments, and thus it is standard practice.  There are only rare exceptions, such as treating children or pregnant women, in which the ethical concerns indeed usually outweigh the benefits of controlled testing.  But for adults, we take our risks, knowing that many more will be benefitted than harmed.  Despite all this, Howard is adamant:  “ethical issues prevent the availability of an unmasked control arm.”  Again, this is his lame attempt to excuse the utter absence of RCTs, and to force the argument to rest upon much weaker bases.

We see his desperation immediately thereafter, where Howard offers us a fine example of Orwellian doublespeak.  Lacking firm RCT data, “we need to consider first principles, alongside observational data, … natural experiments, and policy considerations”—a conglomeration that he wonderfully summarizes as “a discursive synthesis of interdisciplinary lines of evidence which are disparate by necessity.”  George O himself could not have concocted a better phrase.

He then moves to his six main questions:  1)  What are the population effects of mask-wearing?  2) What is required for mask efficacy?  3) Do masks prevent infected wearers from spreading the disease?  4) Do masks protect uninfected wearers?  5) Do masks have unintended drawbacks? and 6) How might we implement mask mandates?  I will restrict myself to a few key comments on each question.

First:  On population impact, Howard compares both mask and non-mask nations, and then mask and non-mask states in the US.  At the national level, one study found overall transmission rates to be 7.5 times higher in non-mask nations, but there are so many variables at work in different nations that the effect of any one action, like masks, is impossible to isolate (lacking an RCT).  Among the various states, another study claims 2% lower daily growth rate in mask states, versus non-mask.  But again, multiple and diverse measures were taken in the 50 states, over various periods of time, making it impossible to isolate the mask-alone effect.  This is precisely why we need RCT data.

Howard then cites—of all things—a Goldman Sachs study of July 2020, arguing that a nationwide mask mandate could save up to 5% of the US GDP (by avoiding harsh lockdowns), which translates to about $1 trillion.  Think of it:  compel 330 million people to wear masks, and save $1 trillion!  Who could turn that down?  Not Jeremy Howard.  One trillion dollars is too much for him to pass up:  “mask-wearing could be a low-risk measure with a potentially large positive impact.”  Of course, on the other hand, Congress is about to pass a $2 trillion package for “Covid relief”—thus for just half that price, we could all get to live mask-free.  That sounds like a deal to me.

Given the dearth of empirical data, researchers typically turn to computer models, and this is precisely what has happened with Covid.  Howard cites a study by Stutt, explaining that “it is impossible to get accurate experimental evidence for potential control interventions, but that this problem can be approached by using mathematical modelling.”  But math models can easily lead to absurd and unrealistic results.  As Howard explains, “the effect is greatest when 100% of the public wear face masks.  [Stutt] found that, with a policy that all individuals must wear a mask all of the time,” that viral spread could be eliminated.  Right—and if everyone donned spacesuits for the next six months straight, that would do it too.  In the end, as Howard admits, “models presented…are only as accurate as their assumptions and parameters”—but ‘unrealistic accuracy’ is worthless.  “Simulations and similar models are simplifications of the real world, and cannot fully model all of the interactions and drivers of results in practice.”  Of course.

Second:  On efficacy and transmission characteristics, Howard offers little of value.  He cites the widely-used statistic that asymptomatic individuals account for 40 to 45% of all infections, and then concludes, with no justification, that “everyone, adults and children, should wear masks.”

Third:  Regarding the importance of “source control”—that is, of masks blocking infected individuals from spreading the virus—Howard admits that “there are currently no studies that measure the impact of any kind of mask on the amount of infectious [Covid] particles from human actions.”  More bad news for the pro-mask lobby.  Howard is reduced to discussing old studies on other, non-Covid viruses.  In the end, he even cites the infamous “hamster study” that was used in 2020 to justify masks:  infected hamsters were separated in a cage from healthy ones by a “mask curtain,” and the curtain was found to reduce infections.  Nice—if you happen to be a hamster, or live in a cage.

Fourth:  As to the question of protection of the user, Howard admits at the start that “it is much harder to directly test mask efficacy for PPE using a human subject, so simulations must be used instead”—with all the shortcomings cited above.  He then refers to three observational studies, in “health care environments” (e.g. in a hospital), showing some improvement with masks.  In discussing another study, Howard again laments the absence of a real RCT study, noting that “there was not a ‘no mask’ control group because it was deemed ‘unethical’.”  Most existing data on wearer protection was done with the flu virus, but “it is not yet known to what extent findings from influenza apply to COVID-19 filtration.”  In the end, Howard offers a pile of qualifications:  “Overall, it appears that cloth face covers can provide good fit and filtration for PPE in some community contexts, but results will vary depending on material and design, the way they are used, and the setting in which they are used” (emphasis added).  It inspires little confidence.

Fifth:  Of the sociological considerations, Howard and colleagues provide little of relevance.  They are concerned that mask-wearers may become over-confident and thus adopt risky behaviors.  They are concerned that mandating masks only for the sick—as has always been done in the past—risks “stigmatizing” them.  The same holds for blacks and other minorities, who (rightly) fear being seen as criminal threats if they alone are masked.  Howard concludes, unsurprisingly, that mask-wearing as “universal policy” is the best solution.

Best of all, says Howard, masks can create a “new symbolism.”  Mask-wearing “can provide feelings of empowerment and self-efficacy,” which can in turn “make masks symbols of altruism and solidarity.”  Talk about virtue-signaling!  Prove your moral worth!—wear a mask!

Six:  Howard’s “implementation considerations” are devoid of useful content.  Mask mandates can be “challenging” and “polarizing” (really?), but with sufficient scare-mongering, governments can drive up rates.

In his short concluding section, Howard ends with another highly-qualified statement:  “The available evidence suggests that near-universal adoption of nonmedical masks when out in public, in combination with complementary public health measures, could successfully reduce…community spread, if such measures are sustained” (again, with emphasis added).  He then again cites the Goldman-Sachs figure of $1 trillion savings with a national mandate.  In the end, Howard and friends have almost nothing to stand on; they have no valuable RCT study data, they have only weak “observational” results, and they must draw from older studies on non-Covid viruses that are of dubious value.  And yet, they can recommend that governments “strongly encourage” the “widespread” use of masks, in conjunction with the “appropriate regulation.”

Behold:  Real Data!

Had poor Mr. Howard been a bit more perceptive during the writing of his study, he would have encountered an astonishing situation:  a team of researchers had started, already in April 2020, to conduct an actual RCT test of Covid infections, in real people, living in real-life situations.  This is the very situation that Howard called ‘impossible,’ and something that was rife with ‘ethical problems.’  And yet there it was:  a team of Danish researchers had recruited 6,000 average Danes to test the efficacy of mask-wearing—specifically, whether masks protected the wearer, and if so, by how much.

A research team led by Henning Bundgaard—an actual doctor with an actual PhD and a professor at the top medical university in Denmark—gave high-quality surgical-grade masks to 3,000 random healthy people, and simply tracked another 3,000 random healthy people as their non-mask control group.  In Denmark at that time, mask-wearing was optional.  They followed people in both groups for one month, and then administered a standard Covid test to see how many in each group got infected.  The results were striking.  The masked group had 42 infections (1.8%), and the non-mask control group had 53 infections (2.1%).  So yes, the mask group had a slightly lower infection rate, but given the numbers, it is not statistically significant.  For all practical purposes, the two groups were the same; hence, the masks provided no effective benefit.  This was precisely their conclusion:  “The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers…”

There were the usual qualifications, as exist with any such study.  Due to low relative numbers of infections and other methodological limitations, the Bundgaard study had a confidence interval (CI) of 95%, less than the preferred 98 or 99%.  Thus, the data are compatible with a relatively wide variation of possible results; that is, there could actually be a significant reduction from the masks, or even a significant detriment from them, statistically speaking.  Hence, the study technically provides “inconclusive results,” as Bundgaard readily admits.  Only more research can answer this question more definitively.  Be that as it may, it was still a true randomized control test, and still provides useful and statistically significant results.

Needless to say, these results were not what the dominant pro-maskers wanted to see.  Consequently, ‘cancel culture’ swung into gear against Dr. Bundgaard and team.  Or rather, ‘pre-cancel culture’:  major medical journals refused to publish his study.  It was simply not welcome news.  This resulted in at least a 3-month delay, which is very unfortunate, given the urgency of the situation.  Finally, in late November, the prestigious Annals of Internal Medicine published the report:  “Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures.”

The reaction was predictable.  The media almost entirely ignored it, as did all those in government and other positions of authority; evidently they felt it was inappropriate to “muddy the water” with such contradictory information.  Response from the UK medical profession was more extensive, more honest, and generally positive, though not without its critics.  On the negative side, doctors suggested that the low infection rates skewed the results toward ‘no difference’; some suggested that better results would have been seen in higher-infection Asian nations, and others pointed out that the sample size (6,000) was simply not high enough to resolve the difference.  A couple of critics argued that a one-month study could not catch all cases, given a 14-day incubation period.  But others were very positive about the study.  Dr. Simon Clarke wrote:

This is a well-designed and carefully presented study.  It provides very good evidence confirming what many people suspected: that wearing a facemask in public, while others around you don’t wear masks, does little or nothing to reduce your risk of being infected by the coronavirus.  In fact, it might even slightly increase your risk of being infected. …  Taken together, all the evidence shows that it is important for health authorities not to over-stress the effectiveness of facemasks as a way to protect wearers.  If people think that wearing a mask means they are reducing their risk of being infected, they are very much mistaken.

Dr. Paul Hunter added this:

The results of the DANMASK-19 randomised controlled trial on face mask use is a good study of the potential value of wearing a face mask to protect the wearer. … The DANMASK-19 study was a well-designed community study. … Swabbing and blood tests at one month would pick up most but not all infections, but this is unlikely to have biased the results and they are less likely to be biased than self-reported symptoms without a diagnosis confirmation. … This finding is in line with our own systematic review published in March, where we estimated the value of wearing masks as primary prevention was about 6% but in the range 20% to -19%.  Adding this study to our own review would not materially affect our conclusions.

Another researcher, Dr. Julii Brainard, had this to say:

This is a well-run trial with enough participants to have high confidence in the results—therefore the statistical analysis was adequately powered and inherently adjusted for possible confounders, unlike most studies that try to make conclusions about mask-wearing and catching respiratory disease. …  The findings are very similar to what emerged when we assessed earlier research on mask wearing to prevent influenza-like illness: that mask wearing appears to have [only] a small protective effect to the wearers.  The magnitude of the protective effect and its statistical significance are not at the thresholds that would normally be required to make a recommendation in favour of mask-wearing.

The situation was encapsulated by Professor Ashley Woodcock: “This is a very valuable community study.  The paper is very clear, the analysis correct, and the interpretation appropriate.”  And a short but widely circulated article in the Spectator (UK) by two prominent Oxford professors was simply titled, “Landmark Danish study finds no significant effect for facemasks.”

Subtler Arguments against Masks

The primary argument against masks, then, is this:  1)  They do not protect the wearer.  Based on limited data so far, this seems to be true.  Of course, we still want to know if they protect others, meaning, others who are not wearing masks—because we already know that others wearing masks are unprotected.

But if we think about it, we realize that there is a certain symmetry at work here.  The problem of transmission is one of output and input:  an infected person expels the virus, and a healthy person inhales the virus.  But if the masks don’t block the inflow (as proven above), then they don’t block the outflow.  Masks are not a one-way valve.  The same airflow patterns ‘in’ are reflected in airflow patterns ‘out.’  Yes, these patterns are different in masked people versus unmasked, but evidently they do not halt the ingestion of viral particles; hence, they do not halt the expulsion.  I suspect that future research will bear this out.

Granted, this seems to conflict with common sense.  It would seem that masks, by blocking at least some our expelled droplets, must be helping, at least a little bit.  And of course, they do block some of the germs.  But the evidence suggests that this does not prevent infection.  As long as the expelled air is not rigorously scrubbed of droplets—such as in a filtered respirator or full body suit—they still escape, and are still passed on to people, masked or otherwise, at roughly the same rate.  This is the moral of the Danish study.

But there are other reasons to reject mask mandates.  I set aside here trivial concerns such as cost and inconvenience.  Yes, it’s a bit of a hassle to ‘mask up,’ but I don’t put much weight on that.  Same with cost, given that one can cut up an old t-shirt to make a reusable mask.  Bulk paper masks costs perhaps 15 or 20 cents each.  I will also bypass the concern that masks cause us to breathe in our own carbon dioxide; this is true to a small extent, but I’ve seen no evidence that this is detrimental in any way.  So let me set all these aside.

Consider, then, the following issues, rarely or never discussed:

2)  The present mask policy is irrational.  Here’s proof:  Find anyone in a position of authority—a teacher, an administrator, a restaurant owner, a politician of any sort—and ask them:  “What are the objective criteria by which we decide when to stop requiring masks?”  You will get—no substantive answer.  “When it seems right,” “when infections come down,” “when most of the people have vaccines,” “when we are confident…,” and so on.  But these are irrational answers.  A scientific, medical emergency should have quantifiable, objective criteria by which actions are taken.  This is not an unreasonable request.  But our authorities don’t seem to care.  Basically they are telling us, “We will maintain our mask policy as long as humanly possible, until the political pressure grows so high that we are forced to backtrack.”

3)  Masks are dehumanizing.  The most personal, most intimate aspect of our public person is our face.  I think we all have noticed how hard it is to interact with others, especially strangers, in a mask.  The mouth and lower face convey so much unspoken information about who we are, what we are thinking, and how we are feeling.  Lacking this input, we are left with the eyes, bodily movements, and the voice.  Obviously we can get by, but it is extremely unnerving for many, and undignifying for all.

4)  Masks for children are a form of abuse.  It’s bad enough for adults, but think about the effect on youth and children, who are still learning how to interact with others and how to make sense of all interpersonal clues.  It is a horrible abuse of children to make them wear masks, especially given data suggesting that they are at extremely low risk, both for illness and for transmission.  Think of a poor 5- or 6-year-old who has worn a mask, off and on, for a year now; this is a substantial portion of his or her life, and cannot but have a detrimental effect.

5)  Masks are ugly.  Say what you like, people in general are concerned about appearance.  And masks—all masks—are downright ugly.  No one, not even the most beautiful supermodel, looks good in a mask.  In fact, the better-looking the person, the uglier the effect.  (Believe me, no one cares if a Chuck Schumer or a Deborah Lipstadt wear a mask.)  That’s why, throughout history, masks have been used by performers, clowns, actors, and criminals; they warp and distort that most-personal of human features, the face.

6)  Masks represent mindless compliance with authority.  Present-day governmental figures, at all levels, are virtually devoid of credibility.  Thus, when they order us to wear masks, they had better have some truly compelling and transparent reason to do so.  Here, they have almost nothing at all—nothing but an appeal to history (“they used masks during the Spanish flu!”) and to so-called common sense.  But scientifically, neither of these hold up.  Lacking a compelling reason, it becomes strictly an obedience test, and a highly visible one at that.  It’s like a reverse scarlet letter:  it is physical, concrete virtue-signaling.  “I’m an uncritical rule-follower, I trust the authorities, I automatically yield to their directives”—this is what a mask conveys.

7)  Masks represent a kind of unquenchable sin.  Early in the pandemic, we were told that lockdowns, masks, self-quarantine, etc would only be necessary for two weeks.  In 14 days, the virus would cease to be transmitted, and we could all resume our lives.  But of course, that did not happen.  “People are violating the quarantine!” we were told.  “Not everyone is wearing masks!”  And so two weeks became a month, became six months, became a year.  Lately, Lord Anthony Fauci tells us to expect to wear masks into 2022, even with mass vaccination; now it is the dreaded ‘variants’ that are to blame.  And who knows what will come next.  The bottom line is this:  The sin of coronavirus can never be absolved.  Even fully vaccinated people are not allowed to go mask-free!  (“You can still harbor the virus,” we are told.)  This idea of eternal sin is extremely detrimental to human well-being; and there is something deeply Hebraic about it all.

8)  Mandates are a policy of enforced victimhood.  A mask mandate compels you to wear a mask, even when you are feeling fine.  Why is this?  Because you can be an “asymptomatic spreader.”  You can be sick and not even know it.  In fact, it’s worse than this:  We presume you are sick, and therefore we compel you to wear a mask.  The policy is:  Assume you are sick, and then act accordingly.  This is pathological.

9)  Mandates are cowardice.  Many low-level mandates—gyms, restaurants, libraries, malls—exist because those responsible for the local mandate are simply cowards.  They are afraid to buck the trend, or to be the first to drop the mandate.  Everyone operates on the mythical “abundance of caution” principle, which means that, in practice, nothing changes.  “I’ll drop my mandate if you do,” “No, you first.”  On and on, round and round.

10)  Mask-wearing has become cultish.  It is irrational, or at least hyper-paranoid, to demand that everyone wear masks.  We are not allowed to ask for evidence, not allowed to question authorities on this matter (lest we be called ‘racists’ or ‘White supremacists’), not allowed to press back on Emperor Biden, Lord Fauci, or the Jewess in charge of the CDC, Rochelle Walensky.  It is functionally a cult—obey, don’t question, don’t challenge, don’t think for yourself.

So, why do they do it?  Granted that there may be some, small rationale for encouraging mass usage of masks, why do the powers-that-be go to the extreme and issue mandates?  Are they really that concerned about our well-being?  Or are there ulterior motives at work?  It would seem that they relish the opportunity to enforce conformity in the population, to frighten them into subservience, and to effectively suppress individual thought, individual identity, and individual personality.  Masks, indeed, have a homogenizing effect:  People lose their individuality in masks.  They become, just a bit more, the mindless citizen, the anonymous consumer, the faceless cog.  Somehow our leaders relish this idea; individual free-thinkers, after all, are nothing more than trouble-makers for those who would impose uniformity of thought and action.  They are the “domestic terrorists”; they are the “White supremacists”; they are the “insurrectionists.”  In a mask, people look just a bit more alike, and therefore they can be treated just a bit more alike.

Who is really at risk?

The final question to ask is the larger one, beyond mask mandates: Who is really at risk in this entire pandemic?  We have long known that children, youth, and the middle-aged are less vulnerable than the elderly; 59% of all Covid deaths occurred in those 75 and up, and 80% in those 65 and up.  We have also known that whites are generally less at risk than non-whites, specifically, than Blacks and Hispanics.  The age differential is obvious, but the racial disparity has only recently come to some explanation.  A recent study indicates that, of all things, Neanderthal DNA may confer some degree of protection.  If so, this would explain why whites suffer less than nonwhites, since only a European ancestry provides any Neanderthal genetic material.  Higher white survivability may indeed be “biological,” despite previous protests to the contrary.

Recent studies have also confirmed what was long suspected, namely, that obesity is a prime driving factor in severe Covid illness.  The CDC reported that 51% of all hospitalizations occurred in those who were obese, and another 28% in those overweight.  In other words, only 21% of hospitalizations occurred in people who were of normal weight or underweight.

One other group at notable risk is Jews, especially the Orthodox variety.  A report from October 2020 notes that Jews “from Jerusalem to New York” are being decimated by Covid.  In the UK, Orthodox Jews have an infection rate approaching 75%, versus 7% for the British public at large.  The same article states that “Jewish men are twice as likely to die from Covid-19 than Christian men in the UK, even after adjusting for socio-economic factors.”  A death rate double that of Gentiles suggests, again, some genetic factor at work.

Putting it bluntly, the dominant Covid risk factors for severe illness or death seem to be:  old, fat, Black, Hispanic, or Jew.  These are the people most at risk, and these are the people dying from it.  Perhaps there is a sort of cosmic justice at work; perhaps Nature never intended such people to exist in numbers like those at present; perhaps she is correcting her error.  Correspondingly, there is some good news here: if you are white, reasonably fit, and under 80, your risks are minimal, to say the least.  But with our Jew- and minority-obsessed government and media in the US, perhaps we can now understand why there is a “coronavirus crisis” in the first place, and why we must wear a mask.  It’s not for us; it’s for them.

In the end, we get something like a distorted version of the Emperor’s New Clothes.  In the traditional fable, the mad emperor walks around naked and yet his cowed subjects all claim to love his new clothes.  Only the virtuous youth is willing to speak the truth.  In the real world of today, the mad emperor Biden walks around wearing something—his mask—and his cowed subjects all claim to love it, and yet in reality he wears nothing—that is, nothing that works, or that works very well.  We need to be like the virtuous youth, and show it to be what it is.

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics, history, and religion, with a special focus on National Socialism in Germany.  His works include a new translation series of Mein Kampf, and the books Eternal Strangers (2020), The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019), and Debating the Holocaust (4th ed, 2020), all available at www.clemensandblair.com.  For all his writings, see his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com.

Wilfried von Josch: “Meister Eckhart’s Political Mysticism”

Translated and with an introduction by Lute Currie

A descendant of the eminent Austrian botanist Eduard Ritter von Josch, Wilfried von Josch was born in Austria on May 6, 1914. After graduating the gymnasium, he went on to study philosophy in Berlin, Kiel, Munich, and Vienna. He was a member of the Ludendorff Movement since 1929, was in close personal contact with Mrs. Ludendorff since 1935, and knew General Erich Ludendorff personally. He worked with the two controversialists and was published by their Verlag – Ein seltsamer Staat – bringing him “lasting persecution” by the NSDAP.

The earliest work of Josch appeared in Am heiligen Quell, the bi-monthly journal Ludendorff edited, which had print runs of over 100,000 issues. The journal was initially of a philosophical nature but also involved politics later on, sometimes finding itself at odds with the official policies of the regime. The many followers of Ludendorff’s science-based and right-wing neo-pagan religious views (God-cognition), which strongly roots man in his Völk and state,  continued to enjoy the publication of the journal until it was discontinued in 1939 due to the authorities’ refusal to provide paper for it, thanks to the regime’s mandate to tone down anti-Christian rhetoric and because of wartime rationing, thus infuriating his wife and intellectual collaborator Mathilde Ludendorff (General Ludendorff died in 1937). The Verlag finally resumed later, after some changes, as Hohe Warte in 1949.

Until his death in the early 90s, Josch’s life was largely devoted to Ludendorff’s religion, with many theoretical works published, making him an important part of it philosophically. He also performed at the Konzerthaus in Vienna and gave lectures on God-cognition, until they were shut down by the police. Additionally, he went on to start his own Journal, Das Kulturwort, which found commercial success and featured work from intellectual heavyweights such as Haidvogel and Lorenz Mack. All of this activity certainly left its mark and he is largely remembered as an unsavoury cultural figure in contemporary Austria.

In “Meister Eckhart’s Political Mysticism” (Quell, 1939), Josch examines the “political mysticism” of Eckhart from the God-cognition perspective. He argues that Eckhart’s teachings assist in the subversion of the Völk, the basis of the Germanic state itself. This was considered a critical message at its time of publication in 1939 Germany, with the phenomenon of zealous attempts to convert Germans, who were breaking away from Christianity, to the allegedly “species-appropriate” teachings of Eckhart. — Lute Currie

If we do not consider the theological controversies around the mystic Eckhart at all, but turn to the merely political purpose of mysticism, we realize that similar mystical endeavours in other countries and ethnic groups are not at all “adventitious.” Given the importance of religions as the means of establishing and maintaining the rule of priest-castes, the use of similar mystical teachings becomes apparent to us in comparable historical situations. In times of crisis in the Church, when the faithful push into extra-ecclesiastical paths, the aid of a mysticism that stands in ostensible opposition to Church teachings can reverse the movement of secession through the internalization and ecstatic exaggeration of religious forms of inner experience. Through its wide range of conceivable God-concepts, it offers the greatest possible appeal to the diversity of spiritual currents. Therefore, in the endeavour of all mysticism whose focus is the destruction of the will and the personality, it achieves in those paralysed of will by it an extensive controllability for the occult Yahweh-commands of the priest-castes. Since far-reaching political developments are first prepared religiously, it does not surprise us to find in India, China, Japan, and Persia at almost the same time a mysticism similar in every detail. In India, the ninth-century Master Sankara corresponds to the occidental Meister Eckhart. Extensive similarities to the Zen doctrine widespread in Japan, Taoism in China, and the Persian doctrine of Jalāl ad-Dīn Muhammad Rūmī allow conclusions about the political importance of mysticism. Rudolf Otto writes about the relationship of Master Sankara to Eckhart:

Both are equally not accidental phenomena in their time. … With some skill their basic doctrines could be put together and stylized in such a way that the formulas of the one appear only as a translation from Sanskrit into Latin or Middle German, and vice versa. And this is certainly not by chance.

Meister Eckhart’s world of representation is rooted in the occult world-picture of a time and reveals a strong dependence on the views of his two teachers Thomas Aquinas and Albert the Great, even if in individual points minor deviations can be noted because of Neoplatonic ideas. If this dependence on Thomas is so strong in his fragmentary Latin writings, that one can almost speak of sameness of thought, then in his German writings, which are intended more for the broad mass of the people, the influence of the Golden Chain (Catena Aurea), a collection of commentaries on the Gospels by Thomas, is unmistakable, and he does not even shy away from copying entire parts. In Eckhart’s predominantly inner-soul view, in contrast to the world of representation of Aquinas which was thought through to the last nuances and formed to the highest clarity of the concept, he remains largely unclear [compared] to Aquinas, [because] the most diverse interpretations of his theology are possible, which even do not exclude the reading in of anti-Christian Germanic ideas. Whilst Thomas on the basis of the Biblical text develops the foundations of “high politics,” Eckhart presents his philosophical thoughts with reference to corresponding Biblical passages. His often very free, indeed seemingly arbitrary interpretation of the Biblical passages allows him to modify what is allegorized by them even when using the usual occult symbolism. Even though Eckhart is aware of the “incarnation of Christ in time” as a historical-political process, the execution of the individual phases of this process does not become for him a recipe for high politics as it is for Thomas, but rather the illustrative background for God’s birth and rebirth that, in his view, takes place in the human soul.

A common thread running through the entire German writings of Meister Eckhart is the purposeful effort to paralyse the will of the individual to the point of total destruction to achieve complete dependence on the priest-castes (Yahweh). This intention, which recurs in various variations in Meister Eckhart’s German writings, is expressed particularly clearly in the following words: “This is what God (priest-caste) is after in all things, that we give up the will.” “Man comes to his own goals only by subordinating his will to the divine, and thus letting God work in him.” Whilst the religious ideas of mysticism are a lure for those who are spiritually struggling, the tendency towards the destruction of the will fulfills the purpose of mysticism for the knowledgeable priest-caste, since it makes those who are religiously gripped controllable for the priestly goals. An obedience of will to Yahweh-command brings those who have been robbed of their will the laudatory appellation “those who are of good will,” whilst the resentment of Yahweh’s consecrated ones is directed against those who have their own will. Eckhart also takes the side of the priest-castes by saying: [those who have their own will] “is not good will. One should search for God’s (Yahweh’s) dearest will.” Since this research would stop as soon as the alleged truth is found, the whole “truth” is never revealed on the part of the priest-caste. In this way the human struggle for truth should be kept in continuous motion, since a certain remnant remains unexplained, which prevents a final judgment and becomes an occasion for further searching. So, we are dealing here with a systematic abuse of the desire for knowledge in the human soul, with the purpose of maintaining the continuous dependence on the priests.

A main trait of mysticism, indeed of every religion in general, is given in the following dialogue between Abraham and Yahweh at Genesis 18:27 in its classical template: “I have taken it upon myself to speak to you, I who am dust and ashes.” In this Judeo-Christian model, we recognize as a prerequisite for the religious relationship to Yahweh the emotion of being submerged and overwhelmed by one’s own nothingness (in Eckhart’s work “losing oneself” and “to become nothing”), which contrasts with the “overwhelming power” of Yahweh. Furthermore, we can see that the momentum of the “energetic” and of “love,” as well as of the “wondering about” and of the “rigid amazement,” the “absolute disconcertment” about the “being completely different” of the Godhead, is especially emphasized. The “attracting, captivating” is, so to speak, increased by the imagelessness of the God-concept. So, we can say that the Abraham experience throws an immensely clarifying light also on mysticism, which we recognize as the highest excess of the beyond-reasonable in religion. Mysticism holds that de-selfing and will-killing is brought about by directing the attention unilaterally to an object (Yahweh), thus triggering, completely unconsciously, a recession and disappearance of self-consciousness. Eckhart describes as an example a scientist who is so engrossed in his science that he can be slain by a man threatening him after ignoring a repeated warning. The seclusion of the soul should be so strong that the whole world sinks around the mystic and only the illusory God-experience is taken seriously. However, this statement is incorrect insofar as the disappearance of self-consciousness does not yet explain the killing of the will, which lies in a completely different area of the soul.

In the occult worldview of priest castes, which was masterfully shaped by Thomas Aquinas and which accurately explains to us the connection the mystic has to the church’s teachings, you differentiate between a spiritually effecting activity and a mere suffering and enduring matter. Thus, symbolized to us is the rule of the Yahweh priest-castes over believers paralysed of will. The interaction of these two worlds results in that history shaped by the priests in an indirect way. Whereas Thomas, as a man of high politics, looks at the questions of world governance from Yahweh’s point of view, Eckhart sees them from the side of the people striving towards Yahweh. As we can already see from Aquinas’ view that “the way of looking at things is not the same in heaven and on earth,” we have before us two different ways of looking at things with different tasks and goals. For the knowledgeable priest Thomas, the exclusively spiritual-political will that directs high politics is naturally of higher value than the mere human endeavour that works for Yahweh, which Eckhart tries to portray as being of higher value. In the Old Testament, in the Jewish persons of Rachel (contemplative life) and Leah (active life), the two modes of contemplation are prefigured, which we then find again in the New Testament as Mary and Martha. Thomas writes: “Therefore Rachel, which means ‘the seen principle,’ represents the contemplative life; but Leah, who was blear-eyed, represents the active life.” This parable makes us understand the relationship of mysticism to the ecclesiastical teaching (scholasticism) of Thomas Aquinas. Mysticism, then, has only the task of leading the will-paralysed people to the priests who knowingly direct politics. The hope that the priest-castes place in occult mysticism is expressed by the theologian Alois Dempf, after advising a precise knowledge of Thomas to understand Meister Eckhart, in the following words:

Thus, it could be that the Thomist movement, which has now begun so energetically among German Catholics, opens for many also the access to Meister Eckhart, indeed, and that his quite peculiar position and mission in intellectual history, his indirect relations to the Reformation and dialectical theology also contribute essentially to the reconciliation of the denominations.

  • Quell, Folge 4, 19.5.1939.



Prologue to “A Critical Look at Rush Limbaugh”—Parts One and Two

Like many of Rush Limbaugh’s listeners I felt a personal connection to him, but unlike many, I did not believe that he was practically infallible or always told the truth. I saw great merits in him but also weaknesses. “A Critical Look at Rush Limbaugh,” published by The Occidental Observer in late 2014, is largely a memoir of important occasions when Rush Limbaugh demonstrably had not been honest, and had served the political establishment rather than his own ideals or the people.  We loved him, but he had let us down.

There were several purposes in writing this. Obviously it was to educate the public, but this was not necessarily a disfavor to Rush Limbaugh. Suppose that he had made untrue statements only because he felt forced by circumstances: in that case it could be a relief for him, the alleviation of a moral burden, to find out that his audience “gets it.” On the other hand, while I was seeing positive changes in the Rush Limbaugh of 2014, the continuing pretense that he had practically never been wrong about anything was troubling, because it showed a lack of repentance. It was troubling, both that he was saying it and that the audience was accepting it. I wanted to call attention to Rush Limbaugh’s past failings so that returning to them would be difficult. I wanted to burn the bridges behind Rush Limbaugh so that he could not go back.

The critique seemed to attract wide attention. A few days after TOO published my two-part critique, Rush Limbaugh did something unusual. He spent his first hour ruminating over the “blogosphere” and “new media.” Based on the timing and some details in what he said, and the unusually subdued and thoughtful manner in which he spoke (not his usual boisterous persona), I believe that my criticisms were on his mind.

Significantly, he did not have any negative comment. On the contrary, he said that blogs and websites are part of the “alternative media” that he started with his syndicated radio show in 1988. About the creators of “new media,” he says:

Many of them are conservative, many of them are renegade conservative, but the point is, it is causing the Drive-By Media further panic,  and the impact that all of this new media is having is clearly the erosion of the monopolistic mainstream media model. That deterioration is continuing. …

The American people — and I’m not being critical. You know me, the more the merrier, and the freer the speech, the better. I can deal with it. You know, I’m in a content content content business. I’m proud of my content, and I don’t make it up, and I don’t lie about it, so I got nothing to worry about. But the people in the Drive-Bys who have been living a lie for all these years are being exposed, and they are in a panic.

I had criticized him precisely for “living a lie.” He also referred to “being exposed,” and I certainly did expose him. He acknowledges that he could be a target of criticism from some “renegade conservatives” in thes“new media” when he says: “I can deal with it. …. I got nothing to worry about.”  His subdued tone suggested nonetheless that he had been affected by something.

Rush Limbaugh’s last years turned out to be his best. While he did not become 100% honest all the time, he did become more honest, and more valuable to his people. I was not alone in noticing this change; Don Black on Stormfront Radio also commented on it.

I certainly do not want to appear to claim credit for this, however. The important factor facilitating Rush Limbaugh’s evolution  was  not a screed that gave him pause on one day: rather, it was a change in practical circumstances, specifically the rise of Donald Trump.

The necessity of discussing Black-White race differences

We cannot discuss the failures of Black Americans without mentioning racial differences in intelligence and personality. Often we are led to believe by the mainstream media that disparities require correction in the form of diversity initiatives.  To some, the obvious explanation for the shortage of Blacks in STEM is discrimination.  Such a narrow outlook fails to account for the fact that on average, Blacks score lower on IQ tests, hence this could explain their reluctance to pursue difficult majors and why they usually drop out at higher rates than White students.  Interestingly, researchers do not observe a similar trend for less demanding fields.

Unsurprisingly, data experts have identified physics, mathematical sciences, and philosophy as the majors with the highest IQs in America and Blacks are underrepresented in all three.  These areas demand intellectual curiosity, so they naturally exclude dullards.  And since curiosity is a function of intelligence — people with lower IQs will be less curious.  As someone who has had countless interactions with Blacks, I am mystified by their disregard for abstract thought.  Unfortunately, I have met too many formally educated Blacks who openly express contempt for research if it will not result in financial benefits.

Although money is a prominent motivator — high performance is driven by passion.  So, considering that on average, Blacks have lower IQs and display less curiosity, their motivation to master complex subjects is relatively less.  Affirmative action can never reduce the deficit of Blacks in fields like philosophy and the classics. People who study these subjects seek to unlock the secrets of life. Philosophers, for example, frequently debate the meaning of the good life.  However, such theoretical matters are insignificant to Blacks.

Moreover, even though scholars assert that Blacks have made gains in IQ, Black culture is not conducive to learning. I am yet to fathom why Black acquaintances find my reading habits puzzling. Probably they think pondering the unknown will create a generation of misfits, though I suspect that this opposition stems from a dearth of curiosity.  Attempting to understand Black people is truly a daunting task.


Likewise, studies on racial differences in self-control offer fascinating data.  Blacks score lower than Whites on measures of self-control—what personality psychologists label conscientiousness or effortful control.  One’s level of self-control is a good predictor of academic success, wealth, and involvement in crime. People with higher levels of self-control are likely to plan for the future.  Unlike their impulsive counterparts, they master the art of delaying gratification.  Further, when we account for the role of self-control in fostering academic achievement, the lackluster performance of Black students appears less unusual.

Whereas people deficient in self-control are reluctant to plan beyond the present, their peers will waive luxuries today with the awareness that their hard work will allow them to reap future dividends.  Clearly, students in the latter category will prefer partying to studying, and so earn lower grades.  In addition, reviewing the data makes it easier for us to appreciate the prominence of Black students in delinquent activities.  Researchers show that among adolescents, lower rates of self-control have been associated with participation in delinquent activities.  Also, of great interest is the important relationship between self-control and patience. Patience is a function of self-regulation, so people deficient in self-control exhibit higher levels of impatience. As expected, studies demonstrate that higher rates of impatience are related to a greater degree of disciplinary referrals at school, lower graduation rates, and expenditure on alcohol.


On the other hand, mainstream pundits often invoke the wealth gap as an indication of racial discrimination.  However, their analysis is indeed mistaken.  IQ and academic performance differences in the usual direction have been found when controlling for social class—which is why social class-based college admissions do not accomplish the goal of admitting larger numbers of Blacks; lower SES Whites still score higher than Black of the same social class. We have shown that Blacks score lower on tests of IQ and self-control, so this vicious combination should logically produce impulsive people.  Borgo (2013) in an assessment of ethnic and racial disparities in saving behavior argues that “African Americans have lower saving rates than Whites, even after controlling for income and socio-demographic factors.”  The dominant profiles of Black people preclude them from developing long term plans.  As Borgo notes in the study: “Black…households are less willing to take risks and have significantly shorter planning horizons than do other groups, even after conditioning on income, age, and education.”


Meanwhile, we are regularly reminded that Blacks are denied loans at higher rates than Whites.  Yet compared to Whites, Blacks report lower levels of creditworthiness.  In fact, Blacks perform worse than other racial groups with similar credit ratings.  Assuming that financial institutions are guided by data they cannot be faulted for discriminating against Blacks.  Perhaps, if the evidence suggested that on average, Blacks had more self-control and longer planning horizons, we could accuse bankers of perpetuating racial discrimination, but the reverse is true, so they are justified in preferring Whites and Asians over Blacks.


Similarly, their disproportionate involvement in crime can be ascribed to lower levels of IQ and self-control. Intelligent people are capable judges of the implications of present actions on future opportunities, so in their world engagement in criminal activities can only result in a life of drudgery.  To smart people responding aggressively to an insult is not worth the cost of a criminal record.  Less intelligent people, however, are impulsive and may defend their honor by resorting to physical abuse.  For example, some time ago, a Black woman nearly killed a cab driver because he complained that she was moving like a snail and he wanted her to get into the car, so he could continue with his business. 


Invariably, after perusing the evidence on racial differences, we can conclude that the dysfunctional state of the Black family is a consequence of racial differences in personality.  Forming a family requires self-control, but impulsive people lack the willpower to eschew promiscuity.  Nonpoor Blacks, for example, are less likely than nonpoor Whites to oppose premarital sex.   The promiscuity of Blacks is a barrier to creating stable families — even conservatives are unwilling to admit this truth. For too long we have expected people suffering from a paucity of self-control to generate respect for the sanctity of the family and marriage.  Now is the time to wake up from our slumber.

Though in my younger years, I ignored race realists, becoming a researcher has taught me that many stereotypes pertaining to Black people are true.  Liberals may ignore the evidence, but political correctness cannot change the fact that racial differences are real and must be taken seriously.

John Rand can be reached at: johnrandian55@gmail.com

Obscuring the Jewish Problem in Alt Media: An Example

Obscurantism: the practice of deliberately presenting information in an imprecise and abstruse manner, often designed to forestall further inquiry and understanding.

We know that obscurantism of the Jewish Problem in mainstream media is rampant and total. This is primarily because mainstream media is largely owned and strongly influenced by Jews, but also because criticism of Jews has been made taboo in our society—partly through use of the media.

Even Alternative Media suffers this obscurantism however. Notable exceptions include The Occidental Observer, Fash the Nation, State of the Nation, Brother Nathaniel, Culture Wars, the Barnes Review, The Unz Review, Institute for Historical Review, and others. Here we will look at one example of popular Alt Media reporting that engages in obscurantism of the Jewish Problem, and see how bad it can be.

An article was posted on February 16th by the popular alternative health expert Joseph Mercola titled “The Web of Players Trying to Silence Truth,” It was reposted by the also popular Children’s Health Defense online journal The Defender under the title “Who’s Behind Global Effort to Silence Critics of the ‘Great Reset’?

Mercola starts with an examination of “The Monsanto Case” to establish the pattern we are to see in the web of players spinning the Covid case. Mercola mentions a number of PR firms that worked for Monsanto/Bayer to obscure the horrors of GMOs, and government agencies such as Commission for Countering Extremism and the Centre for Countering Digital Hate running campaigns against Mercola and other medical dissidents. To see a representative list, open the Playbook at the CCDH website. Mercola asserts that these PR firms attacking him and others have connections to the World Economic Forum.

Publicis Groupe is Not French

At the core of the article is the Publicis Groupe. Under sub-section “Publicis is an organizing force in the Great Reset deception,” we read:

Public deception is now being carried out at a mass scale, and the whole thing appears to be led and organized by another major PR firm, this time the Publicis Groupe, self-described as “one of the world’s largest communications groups.”

Publicis is a Partner of the World Economic Forum, which is openly declaring the world needs a “Great Reset” that will remake everything about our lives and the world, including “a fusion of our physical, biological and digital identities,” and relying on The Fourth Industrial Revolution to accomplish it. Mercola ascribes great power to Publicis in manipulating public perception, especially of Covid: “Publicis and its industry clients have been able to influence and control the press to restrict, indeed virtually eliminate, your ability to get the truth on many important issues.”

It may be a more innocent form of obscurantism—fear of Jewish power—but Mercola makes no mention of how Jewish Publicis is.

The CEO of Publicis is Maurice Levy. A 2012 article in the STL Jewish Light (Saint Louis) journal titled “French-Jewish advertiser enters Israeli and Palestinian markets” declares in the first sentence: “Maurice Levy, the Jewish CEO of Publicis, is bringing the French advertising firm into the Palestinian and Israeli communications markets.”

Vice Chair of the Publicis supervisory board is Elisabeth Badinter. Her father, Marcel Bleustein-Blanchet, who founded Publicis, was at least half Jewish, according to his Wikipedia entry. Marcel married Sophie Vaillant according to Elisabeth’s Wikipedia “early life” entry. “Elizabeth’s mother was raised as a Roman Catholic in a middle-class upbringing, and later converted to Judaism following her marriage. She raised Élisabeth in the Jewish faith.” Elisabeth married Robert Badinter, a “French” lawyer who is 100% Jewish. Robert’s father Simon, a “Bessarabian Jew” who came to France in the early 1920s to escape pogroms, was deported by the National Socialists and allegedly died at Sobibor prison. Elisabeth is a famous writer in France, particularly on the topic of feminism, and is one of France’s wealthiest citizens.

Also on the Publicis Supervisory Board is Elisabeth’s son Simon Badinter (II?). He has been on the boards of various media and PR firms in his career, and presently is a radio talk show host broadcasting in 20 major US cities. Simon is obviously 75% Jewish.

Still another board member who is part of this Jewish family is Sophie Dulac. She is a granddaughter of founder Marcel Blaustein-Blanchet and niece to Elisabeth.

Thomas Glocer is on the Publicis board. He also has obvious connections to the World Economic Forum. For a man of such impressive accomplishments as CEO of the powerful Reuters media corporation, and on the boards of Merck, Morgan Stanley and the Council on Foreign Relations (former Director), it is disappointing that his Wikipedia page has no “Early Life” or “Private Life” entries. Self-obscurantism? Glocer’s blog entry titled “Shanah Tovah Shimon” (‘good year’, a blessing Jews speak at their new year Rosh Hashanah, commemorating the death of Shimon Peres), states: “I met with Shimon regularly, in Davos, in London and once, very memorably, in Tel Aviv.” Though Glocer says Peres was twice Israel’s Defense Minister and founded Israel’s nuclear program, Peres was also Prime Minister twice, President, and much else over a 70-year political career. So to meet with Peres regularly puts Glocer among the top echelons of Jewish power.

But is Glocer himself Jewish? He’s at least very much connected to the Jewish world: “I visited Israel every couple of years to see clients like everywhere else, to meet with tech entrepreneurs from this start-up nation, to support the brave Reuters journalists in Israel as well as the West Bank and Gaza, and to visit my family.”

It is not likely Glocer’s family lived in the Palestinian Occupied Territories.

Publicis board member Marie-Josee Kravis’s second and current husband is Henry Kravis, the multi-billionaire investment firm owner, who “was born into a Jewish family in Tulsa, Oklahoma,”

Another billionaire power broker on the Publicis board is Andre Kudelski. He is described as “a Swiss engineer of Polish descent,” but his father Stephan’s biography says he was born in Warsaw, escaped the German military entry into Poland, found his way to France, and escaped the Germans there too and went to Switzerland. Various sources that attempt to identify Jews, in this case as members of the powerful Bilderberg Group on which Kudelski was a Steering Committee member, such as Radio Islam, The Daily Stormer, and Zogwatch state that Kudelski is an “Ashkenazi Jew” or “most probably Polish Jew,” We must consider this correct.

Suzan LeVine is a Publicis board member who was former ambassador to Switzerland, in the cabinet of Washington state Governor Ray Inslee, and other positions of power. She appears to be Gentile, but her husband Eric A. Levine, described as an “American entrepreneur,” is most likely Jewish. His Wikipedia entry says “He has been a Council Member at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum since September, 2016.” According to Suzan’s bio at Publicis: “Twice during her career, she was a stay-at-home mom, during which time she co-founded… an innovative Jewish community model, The Kavana Cooperative…”

It appears certain Suzan is another Jewish board member or in any case married to a Jew.

The Publicis Supervisory Board is composed of thirteen people. Like the other PR firms Mercola mentions in his article, Publicis is absolutely obsessed with “Diversity, Equality & Inclusion,” and some even add “Belonging” (DEI&B). Here is the Publicis Board’s statement addressing DEI&B:

The Supervisory Board… is carefully balanced in terms of its composition. There are six women and six men, eight independent members and eight members of foreign nationality. Publicis Groupe was one of the first groups to ensure male / female parity in its Supervisory Board.

Applause for Publicis. How noble, achieving such “parity” on its Board. Yet eight of the members (over 60%) are Jews or married to Jews, four are in the same Jewish family, and the top two Board positions, CEO and Vice Chair, are both Jews. Rather than DEI&B, Publicis looks much more like N&IGP: nepotism and in-group preference.

Jewish dominance of Publicis goes even deeper. The current Chairman and CEO of the firm is Arthur Sadoun. His bio does not indicate his ethnicity, but states in the last paragraph:

“Arthur Sadoun became Chairman and CEO of Publicis Groupe on June 1, 2017, making him the 3rd leader of the Groupe in its 91-year history, following in the footsteps of Maurice Lévy, and founder Marcel Bleustein-Blanchet.”

Since both previous leaders were Jews, would not Sadoun be as well? His Wikipedia entry calls him “a French businessman,” Confirmation may come from a Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (“Fighting BDS in America and Abroad”) essay of 2014 titled “France Starting to Reckon with Its History of Anti-Semitism?” It states:

(French Nationalist Marine Le Pen) contended that she was hated by another journalist, Anne-Sophie Lapix, the wife of Publicis chairman Arthur Sadoun. She claimed that the entire Publicis management belonged to an exclusive caste estranged from most French, while her own political mission was to return power to the people. True enough, Marine Le Pen did not actually say that Sadoun and most of Publicis’ managers were Jewish, and her words could be construed to apply to any restricted upper-class group rather than just to a Jewish elite. On the other hand, the Jewish heritage of Publicis, from its founder the late Maurice Bleustein-Blanchet to Maurice Levy, its current CEO, to Sadoun, is an open secret.

Since the author of the article, Michel Gurfinkiel, is probably engaging in the classic tradition of Jewish boasting about the tribe’s accomplishments, today’s Publicis Chairman and CEO Arthur Sadoun is most likely confirmed as Jewish.

We are sure to find more Jews throughout the Publicis leadership structure, investors, and 80,000 employees, but what we’ve seen is more than sufficient to establish the aggressive and tyrannical PR firm harassing alternative health leaders such as Joseph Mercola as overwhelmingly Jewish.


Another associated firm which Mercola calls “the self-appointed internet watchdog NewsGuard” is active in censoring and excluding dissenting views on Covid such as Mercola’s. He says:

NewsGuard rates websites on criteria of ‘credibility’ and ‘transparency,’ ostensibly to guide viewers to the most reliable sources of news and information. In reality, however, NewsGuard ends up acting as a gate keeper with a mission to barricade unpopular truth and differences of opinion behind closed gates. Its clearly biased ranking system easily dissuades people from perusing information from low-rated sites, mine included.

Newsguard received substantial start-up funds from Publicis in 2018. Co-founder and co-CEO Steven Brill’s bio states: “Brill was born to a Jewish family in Queens, New York.” In an interesting tangent, Brill is author of the book Tailspin: The People and Forces Behind America’s Fifty-Year Fall – and Those Fighting to Reverse It. I haven’t read it, but how likely is it that Brill will depart from obscurantism and identify our new Jewish elite as central players in America’s fall, as they indeed have been since about 1970?

The other co-founder and co-CEO of Newsguard is Louis Gordon Crovitz. A National Vanguard article of 2019 titled “In-Browser Censorship: Microsoft Partners With New Jewish ‘Fact-Checking’ Firm” identifies Crovitz too as Jewish (his Wikipedia entry is devoid of any mention, obscurantism most likely the cause, but the picture is highly indicative). The article also describes Crovitz as in close association with “Neo-Conservatives,” which is a euphemism for American Jews mainly concerned with the welfare of Israel. A Truthwiki report on Crovitz actually names some Neocons, almost all Jews, and declares Crovitz a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, now known to “be associated with almost 90 percent of all media in the U.S.” The CFR is almost completely led by Jews.

Newsguard is attempting to provide approval or disapproval ratings on 7,500 news outlets, covering almost 100% of the news most people in the US see. Outlets like Mercola and Children’s Health Defense will be rated red for alarm, forced to the fringes of the internet’s dark corners by Newguard‘s rating system.

The Paley Center For (Zio) Media

The Paley Center for Media is another unit in the army Mercola identifies as attacking him and anyone else prominent enough in alt media to challenge Jewish power, however indirectly. Founded in 1976 by the Jewish man who also founded and built CBS, William S Paley, The Paley Center now declares as its mission: “Drawing upon its curators, collection, and relationships with the media community, The Paley Center for Media examines the intersections between media and society.” Unfortunately for the likes of Mercola and others who stick their heads up above the dominant medical narrative, the Paley Center does more than examine, it manipulates and controls, and there is no tolerance for those it perceives as enemies.

President and CEO Maureen Reidy is Gentile. She was formerly in the administration of ultra-wealthy former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Of seven members of the Paley Center administration under Reidy, at least two, Andy Meyer and David Weinberg, and possibly others, are Jewish. Of a sixty member Board of Trustees, at least eighteen and likely others appear to be Jewish, including Vice Chair Mel Karmazin, former CEO of CBS and Sirius Radio born to a Jewish family in Queens, National Hockey League Commissioner Gary Bettman, and world-controller war-monger Henry Kissinger. Kissinger also co-chaired last year’s Paley International Council Summit, which calls itself the “‘Davos of Media’ [i.e., akin to the World Economic Forum] brings together global leaders and CEOs of the world’s most important media companies, to advance the exchange of ideas and to foster a sense of community.” This community does not include Mercola and anyone else who defies the establishment narrative. Mercola would not have fit into the same community as Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, a top Covid promoter, Director of the World Health Organization, and keynote speaker at Kissinger’s Paley Center Summit.

Of forty-one members of the Paley Center Los Angeles Board of Governors, at least ten appear to be Jews. Member Keith Le Goy of Sony Pictures is most likely not Jewish.

Very recently, the Paley Center initiated The Peter Roth Internship Program. Peter Roth was Chairman and CEO of Warner Brothers TV Studios for twenty years before recently leaving the position. He appears to be obscuring his Jewish heritage, at least on the otherwise often explicit Wikipedia, but it’s no secret that Warner Brothers was founded by and today is predominantly run by Jews, with Peter Roth included in the list. Other Roths who have powerful positions in the media include Joseph Roth (no relation except by tribe), the former Chairman of 20th Century Fox.

Of four major donors to this new Paley Center program, two are Jewish: former “King of sitcoms” Chuck Lorre (born Levine to a Jewish family in New York), and producer/director/writer of blockbuster movies and TV series JJ Abrams, whose “personal life” includes being Jewish. In a bizarre distortion of identity, a third donor, gay mega-producer Greg Berlanti wants to be Jewish. He and his husband professional soccer player Robbie Rogers raised their young son and daughter in the Jewish faith, to the point that the five-year-old son thinks Berlanti is Jewish (“Nothing anyone can say, including my husband, will dissuade him from believing this. He just believes it.”). Berlanti said in an interview for the Jewish Journal that “we sought out a Jewish egg donor — not the easiest thing to find, by the way.” Where there’s wealth, there’s a way.

Lest there be any further confusion, according to a Variety article, the paid internship program is not based on merit, but will “emphasize the importance of increasing inclusion and representation,” favor “interns from diverse backgrounds and underserved communities,” and “help build more diversity in the industry.” Roth praises the Paley Center and the program donors for “creating a program that will ensure greater equity and diversity.” This is Jewish code language for counting Jews as Whites but excluding gentiles of European descent. That theme has been well developed elsewhere.

Should we have any further doubt of The Paley Center’s alignment, recently it celebrated this year’s Holocaust Remembrance Day (officially Day of Remembrance for Jewish Victims of the Holocaust) with the Paley Impact Event “The Media’s Role in Combating Holocaust Denial, Misinformation, and Antisemitism,” The announcement appears to be written by Eva Schloss herself, who claims to have survived Auschwitz, and is the step-daughter of the iconic Otto Frank, actual main author of the supposed Anne Frank diary. Panel topics at the Paley Center event focused on:

“Eva Schloss’s recollections of how friends and neighbors in her native Austria turned on her family in 1938, resulting in her being transported to Auschwitz; Schloss’s thoughts on the emotional toll taken on her stepfather, Otto Frank (father of Anne Frank), when confronting Holocaust deniers after World War II’s end; how social media allows hate groups to flourish; Facebook’s recent ban on those who distort the history of the Holocaust; the necessity of continually magnifying Holocaust survivors’ stories; the media’s lack of coverage over a Camp Auschwitz shirt worn by one of the rioters that stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6; and the need for mandatory Holocaust education for all American students.”

The Paley Center will be fully participating in “the media’s vital role in fighting the rise of antisemitism and Holocaust denial.”

Conclusion: It’s the Jews Again

Dr. Joseph Mercola had the courage and determination to write a critique and exposé of the people and organizations who were defaming, discrediting and censoring him and his colleagues in the alternative health field who did not comply with the official Covid story-telling. His otherwise excellent analysis was reposted by another target of the medical establishment, Robert F Kennedy’s Children’s Health Defense (CHD). These bold moves to push back against a totalitarian media effort by what amounts to a medical cartel were impaired by what must be a self-imposed obscurantism of the Jewish Problem.

Joseph Mercola, Robert F Kennedy Jr, their staffs and supporters are not fools. They could not have missed the obvious overwhelming Jewish representation among their opponents, as we’ve abundantly shown here. Mercola and CHD are willing to wage a media battle against “Big Pharma,” public health agencies like the World Health Organization and US CDC, and the entire medical cartel—but not against Jews. That is one revelation they leave assiduously out of their otherwise honest reporting. They most likely engage in obscurantism of the Jewish Problem in the entire Covid phenomenon out of a perceived need for self-protection. Obscurantism is protectionism in their case.

But is it? How wise is it to fail to identify the overwhelming ethnic component of one’s enemies, in order to know thy enemy and plan a successful strategic campaign? Under the cover of the Covid story, crimes against humanity are being committed. The World Economic Forum’s Great Reset is coming, declaring itself to be a complete transformation of humanity and society—and not for the better—of the vast multitudes on Earth who survive the transition. We haven’t even examined the Jewish component of the WEF yet, but I assure you it’s there, and Executive Director Klaus Schwab may be part of it. Mercola, RFKJr and many others who are in the media bomb sites of the medical Cabal appear incapable of even identifying the Jews embedded in powerful institutions deployed against them. Perhaps Mercola et al. feel they have a strong case to assert their alternative medical positions, but are hopelessly weak should they attempt to expose the Jewish Problem.

It is a dilemma we all must face, and accept the consequences. Self-imposed obscurantism may not ultimately be safe, but neither is open disclosure. Whatever outlet displays this essay risks the wrath of Jews. We have not obscured the Jewish Problem here, but faced it frontally, for any who cares and dares to examine it. The evidence is overwhelming. Joseph Mercola and others in the alternative medical field are confronted ultimately by Jews. This is essential to know if we are to engage in enough self-defense to survive the Great Reset.